Innov. Infrastruct. Solut.

(2016) 1:38
DOI 10.1007/s41062-016-0038-3

REVIEW ARTICLE

Rational design of foundations on soil reinforced by columns

Mounir Bouassida1

Received: 12 July 2016 / Accepted: 25 August 2016

 Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Abstract This paper presents a review of the book titled

Design of column-reinforced foundations that I recently
published. The design of foundations on reinforced soil by
columns is tackled within a general framework, where
several aspects are taken into consideration: modeling of
reinforced soil, bearing capacity, settlement, acceleration
of consolidation, and improvement of soil characteristics
with selected case histories. Unlike existing books on
unique improvement techniques (deep soil mixing, stone
columns, sand compaction piles) that focus on installation
and equipment issues, this one-of-a-kind guide details
design purpose. This book rationally handles the design of
column-reinforced foundations (CRF) from modeling up to
the study of behavior predicted by the numerical analysis
and assessed by the field test results. Quasi-exact solutions
of the ultimate bearing capacity of soil reinforced by a
trench are suggested. The analytical solutions for predicting the settlement of CRF assuming the linear elastic
behavior of constituents of soil reinforced by a group of
columns are proposed. A novel methodology for the design
of CRF is presented and illustrated by different study cases.
The improvement of properties of the initial soil due to the
installation of stone columns has been evidenced using
numerical and experimental investigations. The behavior of
foundations resting on soil reinforced by columns has been
predicted by numerical 2D and 3D codes. Related results
have been assessed after in situ data.

& Mounir Bouassida

mounir.bouassida@fulbrightmail.org
1

Universite de Tunis El Manar, Ecole Nationale dIngenieurs

de Tunis, LR14ES03 Ingenierie geotechnique, BP 37 Le
Belvede`re, 1002 Tunis, Tunisia

Keywords Bearing capacity  Design  Modeling 

Reinforcement by columns  Settlement  Study of behavior

Introduction
In recent decades, although several books ([14, 20], etc.)
were published on ground improvement along with many
conferences held on ground improvement and related
topics, there is no book detailing the design and modeling
of reinforced soils by columns.
Since 1989, the author has initiated his investigations
dealing with soils reinforced by columns at the Ecole
Nationale dIngenieurs de Tunis (ENIT). Such a theme is
of interest, because of the quasi-automatic use of deep
foundations for versatile infrastructure projects in Tunis,
Tunisia. The soil profile in Tunis City is characterized by
the presence of a very thick soft clay layer that poses
serious challenges for civil engineering foundation
designers.
The authors primary action focused on the calculation
of bearing capacity of column-reinforced foundations
(CRF) using the direct approach of limit analysis
(19901996). The main finding during this research period
consisted in original results obtained by the unit cell,
trench, and group-of-columns models [5].
This initial investigation was followed by the settlement
prediction and the acceleration of consolidation of CRF. Those
issues were tackled in the linear elastic framework using the
group-of-columns modeling and a poro-elastic behavior considering the unit cell model (20032005). In parallel, the study
of the improvement of soft soil characteristics was found of
great importance in view of a better understanding of the
observed behavior of CRF. Various numerical models led to
meaningful findings as published from 2003 to 2014.

123

38

Page 2 of 7

Meanwhile, the homogenization method was found

quite interesting for the determination of the bearing
capacity of CRF (20012006), and the design related to the
reinforcement using floating columns (2009).
This set of results (19952005), handling both the
bearing capacity and the settlement verifications, served to
build up a novel methodology for designing CRF. The
main benefits of this methodology were the optimization of
the treatment cost, and, more importantly, its applicability
for all types of soils and columns installation techniques.
The methodology was implemented in Columns 1.0 Software that has been commercialized since 2009 by the
established consulting bureau in geotechnical engineering,
Simpro (http://www.geosimpro.com).
As different design codes are used in several countries,
the major merit of the present book for practitioners consists in the design of column-reinforced foundation by a
unified method applicable to stone columns, deep mixing
method, and sand compaction piles.
The content of the book covers all aspects related to
foundations on soil reinforced by columns, including considerations on bearing capacity, settlement, acceleration of
consolidation, improvement of soil characteristics due to
columns installation, and the study of behavior of such
foundation showing the performance of floating columns.
First, column-reinforced foundations are introduced, such
that even readers who are not familiar with the topic can get
acquainted with it easily. Topics on bearing capacity and
settlement calculations, design methodologies, acceleration
of soil consolidation, and case studies are then systematically
introduced. Strength of this book is that it presents the
methods of investigations comprising analytical, numerical,
and experimental techniques, which are, indeed, necessary in
handling complex engineering problems.
This paper summarizes the main results presented in the
six chapters included in the book [9] and also points out
some new thoughts and open questions in forthcoming
research investigations related to the design of foundations
on column-reinforced foundations. Some references listed
in the book by Bouassida [9] have been included in this
paper review.

An introduction to column-reinforced foundations

Column-reinforced foundations are introduced as a set of
in situ ground improvement techniques that consist of
installed vertical inclusions to enhance the geotechnical
properties of weak and highly compressible soils. Focus is
given to the most-practiced worldwide techniques: sand
compaction piles (SCP), stone columns, and the deep mixing
method (DMM). Advantages and methods of installation
provided by the column reinforcement techniques have been

123

Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2016) 1:38

illustrated, the types of equipment used, expected performances, and the quality control methods of these techniques
are described and reviewed. The mechanical modeling and
specific geotechnical properties of the constituents of soils
reinforced by columns were presented to carry out all steps of
the design and analysis of column-reinforced foundations.
Among the very recent methods of installation, special focus
was given on the Trenchmix that is a soil improvement
process enabling the installation of a network of trenches as a
result of cut in situ soil that is then mixed with an added
binder. A spread layer is then overlaid for load transfer to the
reinforced soil by trenches network. The Trenchmix process
comprises several steps which start with the placement of
binder, followed by the mix of ground to be treated by the
prepared binder that can be completed by an added fluid [9].

Predicting the ultimate bearing capacity

of column-reinforced foundations
Updated panoramas on the suggested methods that deal
with the prediction of the ultimate bearing capacity of a
foundation resting on soils reinforced by columns are
covered. Classification and criticism of these methods of
prediction, and their validationeither by experimental or
by numerical investigationshave been deeply discussed.
Focus was given on the prediction of the ultimate
bearing capacity of column-reinforced foundations (CRF).
First, the earlier methods of prediction are reviewed,
classified, and criticized. Second, the developments made,
since the nineties in the framework of limit analysis, are
summarized in light of the three CRF models which are:
isolated column and trench, unit cell, and group of columns. The limit analysis results obtained by the direct
approaches and the homogenization method are interpreted
and compared to the analytical results predicted by the
previous methods [10, 17] and recorded test data obtained
by Bouassida and Porbaha [6].
The concept of normalized homogenized cohesion was
introduced as a relevant parameter for the design of deep
mixing method (DMM). Consider both the initial soil,
typically soft clay, with cohesion C and the column
material having cohesion Cc = KcC, as purely cohesive
media, the homogenized cohesion is defined by the following equation:
Chom g Cc 1  gC

where g denotes the improvement area ratio (IAR) = the

ratio between the total area of reinforcing columns and the
area A of loaded foundation.
The normalized homogenized cohesion is introduced as:
hCi Chom = C 1 gKc  1:

Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2016) 1:38

Page 3 of 7

30

30

Normalized ultimate bearing capacity, Q CA

25

Normalized averaged cohesion

38

20

15

10

Lower bound
Upper bound
Experimental
Broms (1982)

20

10

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Cohesion ratio, Kc

10

Figure 1 illustrates the linear variation of normalized

homogenized cohesion given by Eq. (2) using a large set of
experimental data collected by Bouassida and Porbaha [6]
and Bouassida [9].
For the DMM, a bounding of the bearing capacity factor
(BCF) was suggested by Bouassida [5]. It is written in
terms of the normalized homogenized cohesion as follows:
3

Inequality (3) provides a general solution of the ultimate

bearing capacity of purely cohesive soils reinforced by
purely cohesive column material as a function of the normalized homogenized cohesion given by Eq. (2).
Two sets of recorded data were obtained from the loaded-scaled test models up to failure conducted on highly
compressible soft clays reinforced by cement columns.
These experimental data are used to validate the lower and
upper bounds given by Inequality (3). In the range of
cohesion ratio: 18  Kc  37 and improvement area
ratio = 0.18, Bouassida and Porbaha [6] compared the
analytical predictions with experimental records along with
those given by the method of Broms [10]. Figure 2 indicates a thorough assessment of the predictions given by
Inequality (3) which fit with the experimental results. In
parallel, the prediction by Broms method seems to be
conservative for a normalized homogenized cohesion
greater than 10.
Mazaki et al. [18] ran centrifuge test models on reinforced soil by a group of columns using the deep mixing

Fig. 2 Experimental validation of the normalized ultimate bearing

capacity of purely cohesive reinforced soil in the range of cohesion
ratio 1837 [9]

200

Normalized ultimate bearing capacity

Fig. 1 Variation of the normalized average cohesion vs the cohesion

ratio and IAR using recorded data by Bouassida and Porbaha [6]

Q
2 1 h C i 
 21:828 hC i:
CA

Normalized averaged cohesion, <C>

Terashi & Tanaka (1981)

Broms (1982)
Experiment
Upper bound
Lower bound bound

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Normalized average cohesion

Fig. 3 Experimental validation of the normalized ultimate bearing

capacity of purely cohesive reinforced soil in the range of cohesion
ratio 62117 [9]

method in the range of cohesion ratio 62  Kc  117 and

IAR = 79 %. Figure 3 confirms that the analytical predictions obtained from Inequality (3) are in good agreement with the recorded data, while those given by the
methods of Broms [10] and Terashi and Tanaka [19] significantly underestimate the experimental results.
Kasama et al. [15] performed numerical limit analysis
calculation of the ultimate bearing capacity of soilcement
columns. The numerical results provided the same upper
bound of the BCF given in Inequality (3). Hence, for the

123

38

Page 4 of 7

Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2016) 1:38

case of reinforcement using the deep mixing technique in a

wide range of the cohesion ratio and improvement area
ratio, analytical predictions by the limit analysis method
can be considered as validated. This constitutes a more
reliable tool of prediction than the previously suggested
methods for the estimation of bearing capacity of foundations on soil reinforced by a group of columns.

Settlement predictions of foundations

on reinforced soil by columns
Methods for the prediction of settlement of foundations on
reinforced soil (RS) by columns are introduced and then
classified into two categories: empirical and rational
methods. The review of rational methods first considers the
modeling of RS: the unit cell model (UCM) and the group
of columns model. Then, for each type of model, the
approach used (e.g., direct or homogenization) and the
constitutive laws adopted for constituents of RS by columns are considered. Figure 4 summarizes the classification of methods for the prediction of settlement of a
foundation on soil reinforced by columns. Bouassida [9]
classified those methods of prediction in two categories, the
first category includes those using direct approaches and
the second one includes the homogenization approaches.
A method for the prediction of settlement using the
group of columns model and the linear elastic behavior
framework is detailed [3]. The assessment of the prediction
of settlement by several methods is discussed through
comparison with recorded data related to two case histories
of foundations on soils reinforced by columns. The

Fig. 4 Classification of
methods of settlement
prediction [9]

methods for settlement prediction have been reviewed,

where the linear elastic behavior is adopted for both the
initial soil and the columns. As a practical result, the settlement reduction, being the principal aim of reinforcement
by columns, is expressed in terms of the IAR.
The settlement prediction of a rigid foundation resting
upon a RS by end-bearing columns has been investigated
by the use of a variational approach in linear elasticity,
which provided a lower bound of the apparent Youngs
modulus of RS from which upper bound settlement estimation is deduced [3]. It follows a secured estimation of
settlement of loaded rectangular and circular rigid foundation resting on RS by a group of columns in arbitrary
arrangement. The results have been presented in the form
of convenient design charts; and these can be used to
optimize the IAR for a prescribed load and a given
allowable settlement of the foundation. The test results
from two cases histories were used to compare several
methods of settlement prediction. It has been verified that
the settlement prediction by Priebes method is more
secured in comparison to predictions made by several
methods adopting the linear elastic behavior for constituents of the RS.
However, the predictions by those linear elastic methods
were in good agreement with the measured settlement for
different case histories. Finally, it should be noted that a
little interest has yet been accorded for the prediction of
settlement of foundations resting on compressible clays
reinforced by floating columns. Such a case of study
deserves a special attention for determining the evolution
of settlement of unreinforced compressible layers, since it
controls the long-term behavior of the foundation.

Methods of settlement predictions of column-reinforced foundations

Empirical and semi-empirical methods

Experiment

Modeling

Rational methods

Unit cell model

Group of columns model

Direct approaches
Homogenisation approach

Linear elastic behaviour

123

Linear elastic and/or elastoplastic

behavior

Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2016) 1:38

Novel methodology for the design

of column-reinforced foundations
The design of foundations on soft ground reinforced by
columns usually involves two important verifications,
specifically, checking for adequate bearing capacity and
acceptable settlement performance. A comprehensive
methodology of design is presented; it successively considers the required bearing capacity and settlement criteria
in the design procedure, in contrast to the previous methods
of design, which only focus on a unique criterion of design,
i.e., settlement or bearing capacity alone. The latter
methods are usually dedicated to some specific ground
improvement technique. The main advantages of the suggested design method are its validity for all techniques of
column installation and its applicability for both endbearing and floating columns.
This comprehensive methodology consists in determining an optimized portion of the foundation area that should
be improved by the installation of columns. The optimization is required to avoid an overly conservative design
and, consequently, the use of uneconomical quantities of
material to construct the column reinforcement.
The basis of the suggested methodology consists of first
estimating the minimum improvement area ratio (IAR)
required to ensure attainment of the required design bearing capacity of the reinforced soil (RS), and then determining an upper bound or maximum value of IAR by
considering the issue of allowable settlement. Optimization
is then performed on IAR within the range defied by these
bearing capacity and settlement limits. The IAR, which
normally controls the cost of soil treatment, was targeted as
a quantity to be optimized over a given range, satisfying
the performance requirements of the foundation in terms of
allowable bearing capacity and settlement.
For practical purposes, the methodology has been
implemented in the Columns 1.0 software, which provides
a viable tool for optimized and interactive design, being
applicable to a variety of geotechnical structures.
Analysis of three case studies provides an illustration of
the implementation of this novel design methodology,
which has been incorporated in the Columns 1.01 software
developed to assist in the design of soil foundations reinforced by columns and to provide cost-effective solutions
for this type of foundation. Predicted results demonstrate
the efficiency of the proposed methodology in terms of cost
effectiveness, specifically avoiding overdesigned solutions.
As illustration, the case study of trial embankment at Saga,
Japan served for the assessment of design of reinforcement
using deep soil mixing floating columns [7]. Using the
Columns 1.01 software, and based on recorded settlement
in short-term condition, it has been proven that the usually

Page 5 of 7

38

experienced IAR of 30 % for similar projects in Japan was

an overestimated solution that can be optimized.

On the behavior of improved soft clay by stone

column installation
The effects of stone columns installation in soft soils are
investigated. First, focus is made on the lateral expansion
of stone material using the vibro-displacement and substitution techniques by means of numerical simulations and
laboratory tests. Second, the behavior of a reinforced soil is
studied after the stone column installation to highlight how
the properties of soft soils can be improved prior to final
loading of the reinforced soil. The effect of such an
improvement on the prediction of the settlement of reinforced soil is then evaluated. Two case studies are discussed to highlight the installation effects of stone columns
in soft soils.
The numerical study of the improvement of soft soil due
to stone column installation induced by lateral expansion
has been carried out using the finite-element code 2D
Plaxis V9. The numerical dummy material procedure has
been performed to simulate the lateral expansion of a single
stone column and a group of stone columns in soft clay
using two respective reinforced soil models in axisymmetric conditions [11]. Improvement of soft soil properties
has been evidenced as a result of the induced primary
consolidation in post-installation of stone columns.
Numerical predictions carried out by a UCM indicate a
better improvement in Youngs modulus when the Mohr
Coulomb constitutive law is adopted for soft clay, rather
than the hardening soil model (HSM). Therefore, much
better reduction in settlement is predicted when an
improved Youngs modulus of soft clay is considered [13].
Investigation of an equivalent group of stone columns
modeled in axisymmetric conditions led to a conclusion that
a significant improvement in Youngs modulus is noted with
respect to the adoption of the UCM. Importantly, an optimized IAR can be identified when the improvement in
Youngs modulus of soft soil is considered [12].
An experimental work in laboratory was performed on
remolded soft kaolin to estimate its improvement resulting
from a laterally expanded stone column within hollow
cylindrical remolded kaolin specimens. A granular material
is incorporated in the hollow cavity to form the stone
column. Such reinforcement was simulated by controlled
lateral expansion applied within initially consolidated soft
kaolin hollow specimens in the isotropic conditions. Different rates of cavity expansion were tested up to twice the
initial volume of the cavity. The lateral expansion was
performed in drained conditions, so that the soft Kaolin

123

38

Page 6 of 7

would be completely consolidated under consolidation

stress equal to 100, 200, and 300 kPa.
After column installation, specimens were subjected to
consolidated undrained (CU) triaxial shear tests with
recorded excess pore pressure. The effects of consolidation
stress and the installation of a stone column were analyzed
based on the improvement of undrained Youngs modulus
and undrained cohesion of kaolin clay.
The main findings that resulted from this experimental
program are outlined below:

The expansion of the cylindrical cavity improves the

undrained Youngs modulus, Eu, and the undrained
cohesion, cu, of the remolded soft Kaolin.
The increase in undrained shear strength essentially
depends on the consolidation stress and the cavity
expansion ratio. Such an increase is more pronounced
at lower consolidation stress and higher cavity expansion ratio.
The increase in undrained Youngs modulus only
depends on the rate of cavity expansion when it is less
than 1.5. When the rate of cavity expansion exceeds
1.5, the improvement in undrained Youngs modulus
depends, in addition, on the stress of consolidation. If
this latter increases, the improvement of Youngs
modulus decreases.
As for the undrained Youngs modulus, the ratio (Eu/cu)
increases when the ratio (V/V0) is less than 1.5,
especially for higher consolidation stresses. It is noted
that the ratio (Eu/cu) increases when the consolidation
stress decreases.
The dissipation of excess pore pressure after stone
column installation turned out to be significant in
enhancing the bearing capacity and reducing the
settlement of reinforced soil.

A linear poro-elastic model is finally formulated to derive

the evolution of primary consolidation settlement by drained
column material, for a given history of loading (stage construction). The evolution of consolidation settlement and the
degree of horizontal consolidation, under a prescribed load
exerted by the foundation, were calculated as functions of the
IAR and linear elastic characteristics of the constituents of
the UCM. The horizontal coefficient of consolidation of soft
soil revealed to be the key parameter that significantly affects
the predictions by the suggested poro-elastic model.

Behavior of foundations on soils reinforced

by columns
It is worth to notice, in the existing publications dealing with
numerical computations of the behavior of CRF, that the
improvement area ratio is often adopted from experienced

123

Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2016) 1:38

projects, and, therefore, the optimization of this key

parameter was not discussed. Contrarily, in the published
book, an optimized improvement area ratio (IAR) is suggested by the methodology proposed by Bouassida and
Carter [7] to predict the behavior of foundations on soil
reinforced by columns by implementing numerical computations carried out by the Plaxis V9.2D and FLAC3D codes.
Three Tunisian case histories: two oil tanks and an LPG
(liquefied petroleum gas) storage facility are investigated.
Main conclusions from the numerical investigations are
summarized as follows
First case study
Methods of settlement prediction assuming the linear
elastic behavior both for the initial soil and column material were investigated. It is noted that predicted settlement
by the FLAC3D code is too close to that obtained by the
analytical method proposed by Bouassida et al. [3], which
adopts the group of columns model that is similar to the
FLAC3D code. The relative difference between those
predictions, of 0.59 and 3.74 %, for the unreinforced soil
and reinforced soil, respectively, is quite negligible. This
first case study confirms the usefulness of analytical
methods of settlement prediction programmed within the
Columns 1.01 software that allows the determination of the
optimized IAR.
Second case study
It is noted that the difference between predicted settlements
of unreinforced soil is not significant; therefore, the use of
any computational tool (Plaxis or FLAC) or any computation option (either plane strain or axisymmetric study)
leads to comparable results from which the reinforcement
by columns can be justified. In turn, when dealing with the
modeling of reinforced soil, it revealed that the plane strain
condition slightly underestimates the settlement prediction.
Indeed, such hypothesis is not realistic for cylindrical
structures, like oil tanks, for which the axisymmetric condition can be fairly adopted, since its settlement prediction
is close to that obtained by 3D modeling [16].
Third case study
The design of a foundation of bullets of butane and
propane (integrated into an embankment) on compressible layers reinforced by floating stone columns was
successful [8]. Indeed, this design complied with the
allowable settlement of the foundation over 15 years, as
predicted by the numerical computations, in the plane
strain condition, using the finite-element Plaxis code.
These predictions were revealed to be in

Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2016) 1:38

acceptable agreement with the measured settlement of

less than 4 cm over 15 years.

Conclusions and forthcoming development

Throughout the book by Bouassida [9], the design of
foundations on soils reinforced by columns has deeply been
investigated in regard to the most viewed benefits, e.g.,
bearing capacity, settlement, and acceleration of consolidation. Main findings provided by this book can be summarized as follows:

Introduces a novel methodology of design for all

column techniques via an optimized improvement area
ratio determined by combining the bearing capacity and
settlement verifications that constitute an original
result.
Provides case histories which show that this optimized
design is cost-effective compared with the existing
methods based either on bearing capacity or settlement
considerations.
Shows the value of the optimized design achieved by
elaborated columns through software already in use by
geotechnical engineers [4].
Analysis of the behavior of reinforced soil by columns,
carried out by finite-element and finite-difference
codes, subjected to various vertically loaded structures,
shows the effectiveness of floating columns that can be
adopted for reinforcement of thick compressible
deposits.

More recently, other investigations have been published

on this subjectfor example, the performance of stone
columnreinforced soft ground under static and cyclic
loads [1]. In parallel, at the Research Laboratory of
Geotechnical Engineering of the National Engineering
School of Tunis, the study of liquefaction mitigation by
stone columns also started. Ben Salem et al. [2] reported
the primary results regarding the effect of granular column
installation on excess pore pressure variation during soil
liquefaction. Those very recent published works represent
the new trend of forthcoming developments related to the
design of column-reinforced foundations.
Acknowledgments The author gratefully thanks Dr Hany Farouk to
support the book publication throughout this paper review.

References
1. Basack S, Indraratna B, Rujikiatkamjorn C (2015) Modeling the
performance of stone column-reinforced soft ground under static
and cyclic loads. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001378

Page 7 of 7

38

2. Ben Salem Z, Frikha W, Bouassida M (2015) Effect of granularcolumn installation on excess pore pressure variation during soil
liquefaction. Int J Geomech. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.
0000516
3. Bouassida M, Guetif Z, de Buhan P, Dormieux L (2003) Estimation par une approche variationnelle du tassement dun sol
renforce par colonnes. Rev Fr Geotech 102(1):2129
4. Bouassida M, Hazzar L (2012) Novel tool for optimized design of
reinforced soils by columns. Ground Improv Proc ICE
165(1):3140
5. Bouassida M (1996) Determination of bearing capacity of rigid
foundations resting on reinforced soil by columns (In French).
Doctorate e`s-Sci Nat Eng Sch Tunis, p 246
6. Bouassida M, Porbaha A (2004) Ultimate bearing capacity of soft
clays reinforced by a group of columns-application to a deep
mixing technique. Soils Found 44(3):91101
7. Bouassida M, Carter JP (2014) Optimization of design of column-reinforced foundations. Int J Geomech 14(6):04014031-1-10
8. Bouassida M, Hazzar L (2015) Performance of soft clays reinforced by floating columns. Ground Improvement Cases Histories, Embankments with Special Reference to Consolidation and
Other Physical Methods. In: Indraratna et al. (eds) Chap 16. Part
Two: sands and gravel piles, stone columns and other rigid
inclusions. Butterworth Heinemann Publications. Elsevier,
pp 433449
9. Bouassida M (2016) Design of column-reinforced foundations. J
Ross Publ (USA). 224 pages, ISBN: 978-1-60427-072-3
10. Broms BB (1982) Lime columns in theory and practice. Proc Int
Conf Soil Mech Mexico, 149165
11. Debats JM, Guetif Z, Bouassida M (2003) Soft soil improvement
due to vibrocompacted columns installation. In: Vermeer et al.
(eds) Proc Int Workshop Geotech Soft Soils. Theory and practice.
Noordwijkerhout, Netherlands, pp 551556
12. Ellouze S, Bouassida M, Ben Salem Z, Znaidi MN (2016)
Numerical analysis of the installation effects on the behavior of
soft clay improved by stone columns. Geomech Geoeng Int J.
doi:10.1080/17486025.2016.1164903
13. Guetif Z, Bouassida M, Debats JM (2007) Improved soft clay
characteristics due to stone column installation. Comput Geotech
34(2):104111
14. Indraratna B, Chu J, Rujikiatkamjorn C (2005) Ground
improvement case histories: compaction, grouting and geosynthetics, 1st edn. Elsevier, Butterworth-Heinemann. ISBN:
9780081006986
15. Kasama K, Zen K, Whittle AJ (2006) Effects of spatial variability
of cementtreated soil on undrained bearing capacity. In: Triantafyllidis T (ed) Proc Num Model of Const Processes in Geotech. Eng. for Urban Env. Ruhr Univ. Bochum, Germany,
pp 305313
16. Klai M, Bouassida M, Tabchouche S (2015) Numerical modeling
of Tunis soft clay. Geotech Eng J SEAGS AGSSEA 46(4):ISSN
0046-5828
17. Madhav MR, Vitkar PP (1978) Strip footing on weak clay stabilized with granular trench or pile. Canadian Geotech J
15(4):605609
18. Mazaki K, Kimihiko O, Shogo M (2000) Centrifuge model tests
on failure envelope of column type deep mixing method
improved group. Soils Found 40(4):4355
19. Terashi M, Tanaka H (1981) Ground improved by deep mixing
method. Proc 10th Int Conf Soil Mech Found Eng 3:777780
20. Van-Impe WF, De-Cock F, Van-Der-Cruyssen JP, Maertens J
(1997) Soil improvement experiences in Belgium: part II vibrocompaction and stone columns. Ground Improv J 1:157168

123